Electronic typewriters under existing typewriter licence: no "new article" where no different trade mark was shown.

Electronic typewriters did not amount to a "new article" under Section 3(dd)(b) because the record showed no material that they would be marketed under a mark different from the petitioners' existing trade mark for standard typewriters. The existing industrial licence for typewriters under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule therefore covered their manufacture, and no fresh industrial licence was required. The court rejected the suggestion that a different marketing description should be assumed, since that was a factual matter requiring proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether electronic typewriters manufactured by the petitioners constituted a "new article" requiring a fresh industrial licence, or whether they fell within the existing licence for typewriters under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule.

Analysis: The existing licence covered typewriters under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The definition of "new article" under Section 3(dd)(b) turned, on the facts, on whether the electronic typewriters bore a mark within the meaning of the trade marks law that was different from the mark already used for the petitioners' standard typewriters. The record contained no material showing that the electronic typewriters were to be marketed under a different mark. On the contrary, the available material indicated that they were to be sold under the petitioners' existing trade mark. The contention that the court should assume a different marketing description was rejected because it was a factual matter capable of proof.

Conclusion: Electronic typewriters did not constitute a "new article" within Section 3(dd)(b), and no fresh licence was required. The petitioners were entitled to manufacture them under the existing licence.

---